Certain conditions of a sexual harm prevention order imposed on an offender who had committed sexual offences against children, which restricted his use of computers, mobile phones with internet access and remote storage, were quashed as they were disproportionate, unenforceable and did not give effect to the statutory purpose.
A sexual offences prevention order was varied because its terms were wider than was necessary and duplicated the regime already in place under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
In an attempted sexual grooming case where the offender was caught by a newspaper sting operation and there was no actual victim, a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on a guilty plea was appropriate for a man of previous good character who had been subjected to the humiliation of exposure in the national press.
